On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 14:05, Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I have a question for the community - why was this patch silently put to a "rejected" status?
> Should there no be some kind of explanation?
>
> During this discussion I got the impression that for some reason some members of the community
> do not want the TOAST functionality, which has such drawbacks that make it really a curse for
> in many ways very good DBMS, to be touched. We cannot get rid of it because of backwards
> compatibility, so the best way is to make it more adaptable and extensible - this is what this thread
> is about. We proposed our vision on how to extend the TOAST Postgres-way, like Pluggable
> Storage some time before.
>
> There are some very complex subjects left in this topic that really need a community' attention.
> I've mentioned them above, but there was no feedback on them.
>
> Pavel, we've already had an update implementation for TOAST. But it is a part of a Pluggable
> TOAST and it hardly would be here without it. I've started another thread on extending the TOAST
> pointer, maybe you would want to participate there [1].
>
> We still would be grateful for feedback.
>
> [1] Extending the TOAST Pointer
I don't see a clear reason it's rejected, besides technically it's
Waiting on Author since January. If it's a mistake and the patch is
up-to-date you can set an appropriate status.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
